Lawsuit seeks end of gun license curb

Tuesday

Feb 12, 2013 at 6:00 AM

A civil action filed in federal court contends that four police chiefs — including Worcester Chief Gary J. Gemme — violate the Constitution in the way they issue firearms licenses. The lawsuit has been filed by six state residents, including Ryan Shaughnessy of Worcester, with the help of the National Rifle Association-supported gun rights group Comm2A.

By Steven H. Foskett Jr. TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF

A civil action filed in federal court contends that four police chiefs — including Worcester Chief Gary J. Gemme — violate the Constitution in the way they issue firearms licenses.

The lawsuit has been filed by six state residents, including Ryan Shaughnessy of Worcester, with the help of the National Rifle Association-supported gun rights group Comm2A.

They're asking the court to declare unconstitutional the law that allows police chiefs in cities and towns to attach sporting, hunting or target restrictions on licenses to carry firearms for otherwise qualified individuals.

The suit, filed last week in Boston, also asks the court to direct the defendants to issue unrestricted gun licenses to carry to the plaintiffs.

According to the lawsuit, the way the defendants issue licenses to carry violates the 2nd Amendment by prohibiting them from keeping and bearing arms. The lawsuit alleges that issuing restricted licenses also violates the 14th Amendment, since an individual might be able to qualify for an unrestricted license in a neighboring town.

The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment provides that a state shall not “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

In 2009, Mr. Shaughnessy applied for an unrestricted license to carry from Chief Gemme, and was issued a license to carry with the “sporting & target” restriction, according to the lawsuit.

In a statement, Chief Gemme gave the following response Monday:

“The plaintiff's civil action recognizes the well-established rule that, 'a local official's decision to impose restrictions on an individual's (license to carry) will be upheld so long as it is not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.' I am confident that the facts related to this case will affirm that my decision to place a reasonable restriction on the plaintiff's (license to carry) was not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of power.”